Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This common judgment shall dispose of RFA No.4658 of 2001 titled Vijay Jyoti Housing Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; and other connected RFA Nos.3825, 3827, 3832, 3833, 3834, 3835, 3836, 3837, 4289, 4290; 4312, 4313, 4314, 4315, 4316, 4431, 5174 of 2001; 763 and 945 of 2002 and 699 of 2008, titled Kalawati Vs. The State of Haryana, Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Shmt.Bhateri & Anr. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Hari Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Har Sarup Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Ramesh Chand Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Mahesh Chander Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Kali Charan Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Rudraraj Pankaj Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Rajesh Marwaha Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Deen Dayal Sharma Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Harsh Rani Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Tilak Raj Broota Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Ashish Broota Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Vitul Kumar & Anr.Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Vijay Laxmi Sharma Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Kumari alias Kunti Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Sham Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., and Parma Nand & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana, respectively, as these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No.4658 of 2001.

This regular first appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of 2 lac per acre for chahi/nehri; Rs.1.30 lac per acre for Barani land; Rs.1 lac per acre for Banjar Kadeem land and Rs.200/- per square yard for plots. The appellant has further been granted solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the compensation amount under section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) and additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the compensation amount from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award or for taking over possession of the land which ever was earlier. The appellant was further held entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the period of one year from the date of taking over the possession and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for subsequent period till payment of aforesaid amount less the amount already paid along with costs.

The respondents examined RW 3 Yashpal, Architect of HSIDC, Kundli who proved site plan pertaining to acquired land. He also proved on record Ex.R.4, the award passed by the court of Shri Virender Singh, the then Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

RW 1 Prem Singh proved on record sale deed Ex.R.1 vide which he along with his brother Lichha Ram had sold land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.yard for a total consideration of Rs.1.05 lacs. RW 2 Dharampal proved on record sale deed Ex.R. 2 dated 17.9.1991 vide which he sold land measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas at the rate of Rs.18/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.72,000/-. He also proved on record sale deed Ex.R.3 which was dated 17.9.1991 vide which land measuring 8 kanals 2 marlas was sold at the rate of Rs.18/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.88,000/-. Ex.R.5, the award dated 15.9.1999 passed by Shri Virender Singh the then Additional District Judge, Sonepat was also placed on record, along with sale deeds which were not proved but marked showing the rate of land between Rs.17 to Rs.31/- per square yard. However, subsequently, those sale deeds were also got exhibited.

On the basis of evidence led, learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat was pleased to enhance the compensation as referred to above.

Mr.Hemant Sarin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat on issues No.1 and 2 by claiming that the market value of the land has not been properly fixed as the sale deeds proved on record have been ignored.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Additional District Judge placed reliance on Ex.R.5 to fix the market value and therefore, by giving benefit of location of land fixed the market value, but ignored the material evidence proved on record by way of sale deeds. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the award Ex.R.5 has not attained finality as the same is the subject-matter of challenge in this court and therefore, c could not be the sole basis in fixing the market value.